Dr. Taylor assumed that the curriculum should be different for students according to their majors. However his claims that to change majors (curriculums) into web or complex adaptive network is actually mixing all majors into one. In his ideal system, communication between majors is vital - the trouble is that communication between majors is difficult. Each major uses different language and knowledge. For example if chemists want to talk and solve a problem with artists, both of them will require knowledge of science and art. Their communication would be difficult because of lack of knowledge about each other’s field. So, Dr. Taylor’s system requires that students understand various academic areas. However, students will not be as interested in subjects they do not like. That will only reduce the efficiency of their studying. It is difficult for present students to deeply learn about their major; it will be much difficult for future students to learn from many majors. Because most of real-world problems are only solvable by specialists in certain field, shallow concepts and knowledge are useless to handle those problems. As Dr. Taylor claims, it is good for people to gather and focus on a problem. Nevertheless students and faculty can do the problem-focused problem currently. Instead, we need to encourage communications between departments and majors but the reconstruction of the curriculums.
Dr. Taylor also argued that universities should abolish permanent departments and transform the system by “renewal or abolishment” after evaluating departments. But I do not agree with his idea, because departments are very necessary for students, faculty, and schools to maintain what the universities are. The division of the university into colleges and department is traditional. I believe that permanent departments are indispensable because they help students choose areas in which they are interested in and which they are good at. Besides, companies will easily decide the job applicants’ qualification for a certain position by evaluating their transcripts. If, according to Dr. Taylor, there would be no majors but only one wide curriculum offered by universities, then companies would be hard pressed to find suitable applicants. For example, suppose a pharmacy company wants to mostly employ chemists and construction company wants people who major in architecture, therefore, students should learn specifically certain parts of knowledge, rather than unnecessary things. Dr. Taylor used a water program as an example; he deemed it far more effective to bring together people working on questions of religion, politics, history, economics, anthropology, sociology, literature, art, and philosophy to engage in comparative analysis of common problems. In addition, Dr. Taylor explained that “schools of medicine, law, business, engineering, social work, theology, and architecture” will chase one goal and find it. However, scientists and engineers will be ones who really solve this water problem. Artists can draw, paint, or express some of the aesthetic factors. However, there is no certainty that artists will want to work on their pieces in the program. I do not know what schools of medicine, law, business, social work, theology, and architecture will contribute to this problem either. Dr. Taylor did not specify what they would do. Hence, the permanent department system must stay as it is now, because to handle and solve the problem, people would not need many specialists but the few experts who will really do the work.
Dr. Taylor suggested that every department should be evaluated every seven years and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. He did not explain why administrations should evaluate departments every seven years. In this case, department is just like company’s departments so that they would do anything to survive every seven years. I am confident that evaluating departments will bring a side effect, and eventually evaluation would be meaningless, because administrations would evaluate departments every year.
In conclusion, Dr. Taylor claimed that universities should reconstruct the curriculum and abolish the permanent departments. But I am sure that we do not have to reconstruct the curriculum. Instead, we need more communication between majors and permanent departments should be kept. Reshaping the curriculum would lead only to confusion between majors. Plus, the permanent department system is running well with evaluating every year.
No comments:
Post a Comment