End The University (Part 2)
Continuing on with my critique of Prof. Mark C. Taylor’s recommendations for overhauling the university system, I arrive at his points 2, 3, and 4.
2. “Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs.” Essentially, Prof. Taylor would like to create areas of study focused on contemporary problems and areas of study. For example, he suggests a program centered around water that would unite areas of study across campus (from engineering to English) to deal with issues of water.
This point is so illogical that I feel bad even criticizing it. I will offer three basic points. A) Hydro Engineers have little interest in water imagery in contemporary literature. English majors have little interest in the fundamentals of hydro-electric power. Why would students be motivated to truly engage these issues, when they are far outside their realm of interest? B) Students at a university are owed a reasonable expectation that their degree will help prepare them for a job. A major in “Water Studies” is unlikely to excite any employer. C) Established areas of study exist because of a demand. Departments without enough interest are eventually abolished. Prof. Taylor suggests reevaluating each area of study every seven years (rather arbitrary, don’t you think) and determining which areas should be continued and which should be canceled. This takes supply and demand out of the academic world and puts it into the hands of administrators. What proof do we have that they will do a better job determining what is and is not important to study?
3. “Increase collaboration among institutions.” This is a great idea, in theory. But Prof. Taylor’s suggested method leaves much to be desired. While this suggestion might work great in large cities, where multiple universities are just minutes from each other, it will work less well over great distances. He suggests using the internet and video conferencing; while this might work, it also defeats the purpose of having a university with a physical location. If we can have all classes taught over the internet, by the best instructors at the best universities, then why should students go away to school? College has a lot more to offer than classroom instruction.
To illustrate, he argues that this would allow one college to have a great German department and another to have a great French department. Two points. A) For undergraduate education, what standards make up a great language department? The only truly relevant factor is the quality of instruction and the depth of classes. There is no reason that any university shouldn’t be able to retain several great language teachers (even if they don’t have doctorates). B) The quality of a department, for most professors, centers around its scholars. In this way, department quality is largely measured by the popularity of its graduate programs. There is no reason that a university must offer video conferencing services for graduate students at another institution. If these students want to go to a program with great scholars, then they should apply at the quality school. In short, this type of investment makes little sense, as quality education is relatively easy to provide for undergraduates and is not nearly as important for graduate students.
4. “Transform the traditional dissertation.” This seems reasonable, right? Not once you start reading Prof. Taylor’s actual suggestions. His main driving reason for the change is that, in the arts and humanities, no book publisher wants to put out a dissertation that no one will buy. So maybe we need to stop worrying about getting a dissertation actually published. Maybe it’s the standard that is wrong, not the method.
He goes on to say, “For many years, I have taught undergraduate courses in which students do not write traditional papers but develop analytic treatments in formats from hypertext and Web sites to films and video games.” Yes, this is perfect, because no employers today are looking for people who can write. Except for the CEO of Delta, Richard Anderson (read an interview with him here). Anderson says in the interview that he doesn’t care about making a PowerPoint; he wants people who can speak and write well. So, sorry Prof. Taylor, you may be innovating, but that doesn’t mean you are providing your students with relevant skills.
More tomorrow, so stay tuned!
Related posts (automatically generated):