The Deeper Purpose of Higher Education

[omorka]

So I've vented quite a bit in the past few months, both in RL and here, about the increasing tendency of "a university education" - or, perhaps more accurately, "a college degree" - to mean nothing more than advanced vocational training, a set of knowledges and skills that prepares one to enter a specific profession, whether it be law, medicine or one of its sub-fields like nursing or veterinary medicine, architecture, one of the myriad subsets of engineering, computer programming, or even education. In the long ago and far away, it wasn't about that at all, and in fact one went off to specialized schools - medical school, law school, business school, a "normal school" - after, or in some cases instead of, college to learn these trades. The various art academies seem to be the only undergraduate remnants of this. The professional graduate schools still exist, of course, but they seem to expect that four years of their job be already done by the colleges and universities.

So the question has been asked, what is it that I think a university is supposed to do? And while I have a very, very clear idea of its task, I've had a great amount of difficulty articulating it well. Fortunately, one of the universities has already done the job for me. I knew I liked the Claremont Colleges - one of them, Harvey Mudd, was the only college that wait-listed me - and another one, Pomona, used to have a set of graduation requirements that described exactly what a college-level education should be about, for me. To wit, you had to take courses that fulfilled the following purposes:

1. read literature critically
2. use and understand the scientific method
3. use and understand formal reasoning
4. understand and analyze data
5. analyze creative art critically
6. perform or produce creative art
7. explore and understand human behavior
8. explore and understand an historical culture
9. compare and contrast contemporary cultures
10. think critically about values and rationality

That's it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, Pomona itself has simplified the requirements under pressure from both the engineering side and the humanities side, but I think the list itself still stands as a good example of what it might mean to have a complete education.

Comments

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The thing is, nice as your vision is, I bet nine out of ten people, given the choice, would take the limited vocational-style education over the "universal" education. Myself included.

(One of the problems I had in my one year of college was that UT wouldn't let me take the course I wanted (in my chosen major), but forced me to study things I had no interest in at all. Emotionally college was a major turning point for me, but educationally it was a waste of time.)

[greeneyes-rpi.livejournal.com]

Amen, sister!

This is why I am often amazed at the things that come out of the mouths of so-called college educated folk. They're not really educated, just taught a trade.

Unfortunately, I include myself in this description, although I had a fabulously well rounded high school education to make up for what my higher education lacked.

[memeslayer.livejournal.com]

Let me rearrange those a bit:

2. use and understand the scientific method
3. use and understand formal reasoning
4. understand and analyze data

1. read literature critically
5. analyze creative art critically

7. explore and understand human behavior
8. explore and understand an historical culture
9. compare and contrast contemporary cultures
10. think critically about values and rationality

6. perform or produce creative art


I don't like #6. It's too narrow, is of questionable relevance, and turns a slight humanities bias into a flagrant one. Other than that, the list is not a bad starting point. I'm assuming that a course "fulfills a purpose" if studying the course material implies doing whatever the item on the list is talking about (e.g. studying math counts towards using formal reasoning).I see a rough division into three groups:

Group A: "Science" -- Math, science, logic, data analysis, and in general understanding our environment/universe. Yes, I know those aren't exclusively science-related, but as a practical matter the sci/tech fields study them in the most depth. Why is the scientific method mentioned, but not any of the knowledge gained from it?

Group B: "Expression" -- Interpreting communication. This is where the humanities bias starts to show. Why are only "creative" works analyzed critically? Can't we critically analyze, say, the Gettysburg Address too?

Group C: "Culture" -- Human behavior, on an individual or societal level. I think these are a bit too broad. #7, in particular, is an entire program of study in and of itself.

From this perspective, it sounds like you're complaining that majors within a group tend to focus so much on subjects within that group that they don't get enough coverage of the other groups. Okay, fair enough. But I'm not convinced that serious coverage of that whole list is even possible. What people do right now is take a bunch of in-depth courses in their field and some introductory/survey courses in other fields to round things out. I agree that this is unsatisfying, but going deeper requires a *lot* more material.

That, I think, is the root of the problem. Learning about the physical universe takes time. So does learning how to use mathematics as a modeling tool. So does learning to analyze data. These aren't trivial items to be checked off the list by one or two courses. It takes years to develop maturity in that sort of thing, and you don't get it by dabbling in survey courses. Those are the general skills, too -- we're not even talking about the vastness of any specific field!

What you would end up with by seriously trying to fulfill every requirement on that list is another four years of high school. Shouldn't twelve years of general education be enough? Why should I wait another half-decade before I decide to narrow my focus a little?

Quick summary, because I really need to start writing my psych paper:
* What I'm going to call the "well-roundedness concept" is biased towards the humanities -- we take lots of their courses, they take few of ours.
* The current approach (intro/survey-type courses) is unsatisfactory, but...
* An in-depth approach to the whole list is not possible given time constraints.
* Most of that stuff should be addressed in lower-level schooling, anyway.
* At some point, pretty much everyone wants to start narrow their focus. College is as good a time as any.

By the way, I overheard a conversation the other day between a couple EEs. They were talking about their upcoming graduation, and came to the conclusion that they were not very well prepared for any specific job, but their education had taught them how to "learn and figure things out". They had even come to appreciate all the math they had to do by hand. That's the thing that really makes me disagree with your position -- if we were doing job training, we would be using all the tools available to us, not sitting here doing Fourier transforms with a pencil and paper.

Maybe more later. Sorry if this is incoherent, I don't have time to proofread right now. :-(

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

Don't like #6 eh? That surprises me.

Creative expression is a basic life skill. All reasonably educated people should be able to write a poem, draw a picture, compose a little tune, or speak publicly. While many people will specialize in just one of those skills, or try and avoid these skills altogether, I think it is reasonable to demand some creative output from all undergraduate students.

In a world where audiovisual communication is the primary voice of mass culture we must, as citizens, understand the process by which those communications are constructed. Such output is very hard to grade. It is difficult to do for many students who have been sheltered from the H&A's.

It is still worth doing.

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

That list is just about right! It even matches the values of my Hippie College where they rejected a number of things that you'd expect from a college (like grades).

At Hampshire College there was a stronger concentration on critical skills. "Non Satis Scire" was the core value (To Know is not Enough). Essentially that boiled down to facts being considered inferior to deeper understanding and good critical reasoning skills. Often this meant that bad science or lousy research were ignored if the process itself was well documented and relatively sound.

Still, I would second that list as being what I would want from an undergraduate experience.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

I don't inherently object to the vocational education being offered. I just object to it being marketed as a university education when it's a vocational one, and to most universities caving on the issue.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

One of the things I liked about the list is that it treated the three major content areas - humanities, social sciences, and hard sciences - pretty much equally (three, three, and three,and then #10 is a "meta" that's related to all three). I still find it puzzling that you divide all knowledge into two areas instead, although I understand that you do so because RIT does. (I think they do you a great disservice by doing so, and I don't think most technical universities do, although I may just have been exposed to a nonrepresentative cross-sample myself.)

I agree with QD that #6 is necessary to be truly educated. It's probably one of the hardest on the list for me, but when I've done it (almost exclusively through performance, to be fair) it has given me an outlook on interaction and information that the purely academic skills simply don't do.

Why is the scientific method mentioned, but not any of the knowledge gained from it?

Specific knowledge isn't mentioned for any of these - deliberately so. A university education isn't fundamentally about information; it's about processing. "Explore," "understand," "analyze," "compare," "contrast," "critique," "perform," "create" - those are what this level of education is about, for me (and, I think, historically - you had to do all the rote learning to get to a university to begin with). You do learn specific skills (Chi-square, declining a Greek noun, hitting the high A without going flat), but the important things are the habits of mind those skills are in the service of. You can develop those habits of mind through any number of skills, but those skills must be sufficiently diverse that the habits of mind become general.

What you would end up with by seriously trying to fulfill every requirement on that list is another four years of high school.

I wish. High school is, for most people, four years of specific-knowledges poke-and-puke, without retention. Only the Pre-AP and AP (or IB, if that's the way your school swings) scratch the surface of the deeper habits of mind unless it's a very, very good school with a feeder system to match.

Shouldn't twelve years of general education be enough? Why should I wait another half-decade before I decide to narrow my focus a little?

I don't object to the existence of the "vocational track" in higher ed. I just resent it calling itself a university education when it isn't, and worse, the universities and colleges allowing themselves to be used as trade schools at the expense of a complete university education.

Whether twelve years of general education should be enough is pretty much irrelevant - would you call the average high-school graduate well-educated?

[omorka.livejournal.com]

As I occasionally remind some of my fellow educational idealists, all the evaluation, analysis, and creative thinking won't do anyone much good without data to evaluate with, analyze, and create with. Abreacting in the opposite reaction from poke-and-puke cheats the mental process, too. But I agree that the habits of critical thinking are the crux of a college education, not the specific knowledges and skills that are the tools of those habits. It's just that no good comes of ignoring the tools, just because too many people use them as crutches.

In other words, no, it's not enough. But Knowing is still a Good Thing. :-)

[memeslayer.livejournal.com]

I still find it puzzling that you divide all knowledge into two areas instead, although I understand that you do so because RIT does.

That's not an RIT thing, it's an Adam thing. Insofar as I divide knowledge into categories, I see a rough distinction between physical/artificial/formal/low-level/"medium" studies and human/cultural/informal/high-level/"message" studies.

I agree with QD that #6 is necessary to be truly educated.

I don't think "educated" is the right concept to apply to that skill. Education is, at heart, about understanding the world. Art is changing the world, and changing the world isn't learning, it's life. Teach the artistic crafts? Eh, maybe. But forcing people to create if they have nothing to say is a good way to turn them off from art. The ones who want it will seek it out. I don't think it should be a requirement. Oh, and if creative art is a requirement, shouldn't non-creative art (engineering) be as well? There's that humanities bias again... :-p

...university education isn't fundamentally about information; it's about processing. "Explore," "understand," "analyze," "compare," "contrast," "critique," "perform," "create" - those are what this level of education is about...

(What I failed to get across before was:)
I suppose the idea of applying basic knowledge to more complex situations is implicitly included in there. I would like to see it mentioned explicitly. This sort of thing is the meat of physics and math courses, and is IMHO even more relevant to education than the scientific method.

(The snarky part of me wants to ask why the list specifically includes culture studies and psychology if it's all about processing information in general, and why biology, which is 95% memorization, is a degree program...)

I just resent it calling itself a university education when it isn't, and worse, the universities and colleges allowing themselves to be used as trade schools...

Words change their meanings over time. You're a social science person, you should know that. :-p I must admit, I'm a little insulted by the strength of your language. Even at RIT, which brands itself as an employer-oriented school, in the IT program (http://www.it.rit.edu/it/undergrad/wrksheetVKSF.html), which is about as "vocational" as you can get, the students still take a year and a half's worth of math, science, and liberal arts courses -- between 43% and 50% of their entire course load, depending on how you want to count. Even if you assume that *none* of the IT classes contribute *anything* towards your list, that's a far cry from a trade school. In the first five quarters as an EE (where those non-vocational courses comprise 46% of the total program), you take all of three engineering courses. That's not trade school stuff, either. Hmmph!

Whether twelve years of general education should be enough is pretty much irrelevant - would you call the average high-school graduate well-educated?

No, and that sucks. But I have forseen the outcome of this line of conversation, and it involves me calling you an elitist and you saying "Yeah, so what?". :-p

[omorka.livejournal.com]

non-creative art

Um, what? This is an oxymoron, isn't it? "Creative art(s)" contrasts with either "derivative art(s)" or, in some contexts, "craft(s)". While I suppose you could argue that engineering is a craft of sorts, and I'll admit I find that aesthetically intriguing, I think most engineers would object to the idea.

Having laid out my position as completely as I can already, the only thing I think might actually add anything to this is that you did, in point of fact, choose to go somewhere that names itself correctly for what its curriculum is. You aren't at a university, at least by its formal name; you're at an institute of technology. Therefore, this is (or should be) all sort of peripheral to you, anyway. I was shocked when you took it so personally the first time, and I'm still somewhat surprised. My complaint was never aimed at technical institutes that name themselves as such; as long as an institute of technology, an agricultural and mechanical institute, a normal school/teacher's college, or a school of mines clearly names itself as such, it's essentially irrelevant to this discussion. It was at the societal devaluation of a true university education, which used to be valued in its own right and is now apparently only valued to the extent that it emulates job training, that I was (and still am) lamenting.

[memeslayer.livejournal.com]

Creative art is the application of knowledge and skill to producing an artistic message, right? Engineering is the application of knowledge and skill to solving problems. Solving problems is important -- want to put them both on the list? Now that I think about it, it strikes me as very odd that it isn't on the list already.

My school's name is over a hundred and fifty years old. It currently describes itself as a university. But that's completely irrelevant. You claimed, with great derision, that modern university degree programs are "nothing more than... vocational training" or (even worse!) "job training". You then specifically included my major in this, effectively putting me and some guy from ITT Tech in the same category. I have spent five and a half years at this school developing my ability to reason, analyze, solve problems, explore, understand, and criticize. The fact that I did not do it by focusing on art and culture is irrelevant. I learned those skills, and I learned them *instead* of training for the "real world". That's why we have the co-op program -- because people who study engineering are learning how to learn, not how to work!

Yes, when someone utterly disparages the one meaningful thing I've accomplished at this godforsaken place, I damn well do take it personally.

[quantumduck.livejournal.com]

I think your understanding of the word art is perhaps a little different than mine. Paintings are art, but the act of painting has both technical and creative elements. Technical skills can be taught (to a point) but creative expression cannot be taught directly. It must be fostered through a process of mentoring and example.

I thus draw a line between 'art' and 'craft'. Art could be defined as the personal and unique portion of any process or product. Craft would be the skill or precision.

But forcing people to create if they have nothing to say is a good way to turn them off from art. The ones who want it will seek it out. I don't think it should be a requirement. Oh, and if creative art is a requirement, shouldn't non-creative art (engineering) be as well? There's that humanities bias again... :-p

I agree to your statement in a way. If I thought some people had nothing to say then I'd say let's forget the whole 'art' thing. I personally believe that every individual has a unique creative voice which, if fostered, would augment their skills and create a better person. That doesn't mean they'd be great actors, painters, or whatever. Those are skills. I mean that those people should learn to inject their personality into everything they choose to do. I think classes in schools should address both art and craft. Generally I feel that they do.

You'll find some of the creative processes common to great artist in creative applications of the scientific method. Truly great mathematicians, programmers and scientists seem to have the same mix of expression and technical expertise as 'creative' geniuses. Classes in every major vary the amount they teach from these two columns, but they are almost always a mix of the two at the undergraduate level.

I would go on to say that even art majors learn engineering in a sense. Most people outside the art world seem to think that artists don't have the same challenges of other students or professionals. Mass media likes to foster such misunderstanding. The reality is that most of the creative arts involve years of study to gain the necc. craft. You have classes where very little creative expression is involved. Actors have speech and movement classes. Musicians have hours of practice. Visual artists have basic theory, and endless hours of drawing training. Most of what an artist generates in a studio isn't art. They practice and experiment until they feel they have a shot at creating something that IS art. (Often they still fail.)

[moontyger.livejournal.com]

Interestingly, I referred this post to someone who was frustrated with the way that liberal arts majors are getting kind of screwed by a lot of this, in that employers increasingly expect universities to be job training and when you major in something that is clearly not, you wind up unemployable and with nowhere to turn. Not quite the angle from which you were addressing things here, but a related problem, I believe.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

While I come at it from an educator's perspective, rather than a student's, certainly the lack of value placed by employers on a true university education (as opposed to the vocational education) is certainly a major part of the problem, and that universities cave on this reinforces the ugly cycle.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

Change that second "certainly" to "clearly." I appear to have stuttering fingers today . . .