Miles, Majesta. (2009). Academic Reformation

Graduation day has come and gone, so, naturally, college is the next step. Most people expect college to be the same everywhere. You take classes that are on the path to your intended major, never straying too far off, and eventually graduate. This picture in most people’s minds is the essence of the “modern college.” While this framework has existed and been followed for over 100 years, a reconstruction may be in order.

The typical American university is modeled as a “mass-production” university. If one were to pursue a bachelor’s degree at such a university, four years in the classroom would be required, regardless of the field of study. This pattern has been the case for almost seventy years, during which time there has scarcely been any change in the available major fields. Some believe that this consistency is a sign of academic strength, while others feel that it is a sign of stagnation. Mark C. Taylor, who is on the side of those considering the issue as stagnant, is a religion professor at Columbia University. Mr. Taylor believes that it is time for a change, specifically from the educational system practiced today to a radically interdisciplinary educational system. Robert M. Zemsky, chairman of the University of Pennsylvania’s Learning Alliance for Higher Education, agrees, in part, with Taylor. Mr. Zemsky has been advocating a new university model. This new model would include a three-year baccalaureate, which, if his vision were realized, may possibly be tied in with a specialized one- or two-year master’s degree. Rather than the established academic restraints, both Taylor and Zemsky would like to see a heightened assortment of courses of study that are built around detailed problems. Making Reform Work: The Case for Transforming American Higher Education, Zemsky’s innovative book, contains his views on the subject matter. Zemsky believes that an undergraduate degree should certify specific skills.

While Zemsky and Taylor do make very valid points, many other intellectuals beg to differ. These scholars argue that the conventional college major is still an important framework. Newton H. Copp is a professor of biology at the Claremont Colleges. Unlike Taylor and Zemsky, Copp says that “college majors have been admirably flexible instruments, bending but not breaking as knowledge has evolved.” The former president of Miami University, in Ohio, James C. Garland, agrees with Mr. Copp. Mr. Garland believes that, due to their internal adaptability, traditional college majors aren’t going anywhere. Garland has professed that a fundamentally interdisciplinary model, such as Mr. Taylor’s, would be an extreme error.

Even though it is highly unlikely that a change will occur any time soon, how would it affect students if it did? While a model like Taylor’s is innovative and sounds well on paper, would it really help? Many students who graduate college cannot find a job, even though they now have a degree in a specific field. Taylor and Zemsky both proposed the idea of new majors that focus around certain problems, such as ‘water’ and ‘mind’. This is a good idea, speculatively, and if the notion were put into practice, there would be an increase of people specialized in certain areas. Graduates possessing those new specialized degrees might easily obtain the new jobs created in their specialties. That sounds good, at first. Later, however, those same people might be at a severe disadvantage. The world only needs so many specialists. Say, at a certain time, the majority of students wanted to major in ‘water’ because there were plenty of jobs available and the pay was excellent. Now, take a single student. This student graduates with his degree in ‘water’, along with thousands of other students, and intends on getting a job that requires a degree in water, but there are only a limited number of jobs available now. What is that new graduate to do? There aren’t many other jobs that call for a degree in ‘water’. The new graduate is not capable of finding any other form of employment because he isn’t certified in any other field but ‘water’. Had the student majored in a more general subject, such as biology, there would have been a wider variety of jobs accessible to him.

One must also consider the long term harm of reformation within the college system. If all people are certified in only one highly specific field, without the knowledge that a broader field would bring, what will happen when the situation arises where someone, or many people, need to collaborate together to form a solution to a detrimental problem? In fact, would not such narrow specializations breed isolation among the general populace? If all people are only capable of discussing things within their own narrow field, how will learning take place? How will new ideas evolve? I personally believe that this type of reformation would breed true stagnation in the academic world. As Copp pointed out, the system that we have now is an ever-changing one; it will grow and expand over time as need be and will mold to suit the needs of those who use it. Is such a drastic change as that implicated by both Zemsky and Taylor really necessary for a change of pace in academics? Could not the original design that has existed for years be tweaked? Is it really even the system? Maybe it is just what we, as students, professors, law makers, and passersby make of it.