Kasper, Daniel. (2009). Keeping the Canon

There is no doubt that the world in which we live stands in a constant state of flux and change. And it is opinion of the majority, the people on the street, that the universities of a nation produce the winds of change. Yet, the standard-bearers of progress, the universities which are the backbone of research and discovery find themselves unprepared for the future. At least, that’s what Robert Zemsky would have you believe. In fact, Zemsky believes that the entire university system is in need of overhauling, that specialty education is a flawed system, one in which there is no hope for betterment or ideas worth keeping.

In this, he is wrong. Simply because an idea is several hundred years old does not make it outdated. The process of declaring a major for studying is an effective method of learning, if only because even the most advanced of teaching methods take time to instill any sort of knowledge to the uninitiated. A semester’s worth of chemistry does not make a chemist. Nor does a single class of art appreciation make an art historian. Considering that Zemsky also advocates the reduction of the bachelor’s degree by a year, how can we expect even the most dedicated of students to gain a degree? His proposed system, his alleged improvement, will do little more than remove indifferent or struggling students from college; a good strategy, perhaps, for the university, but catastrophic for humanity as a whole. Indifferent students beget indifferent students, and a spiral of ignorance begins to spin.

Instead of following Zemsky’s plan for the future, we should perhaps explore the ideas of W. Robert Connor. His plan is simple; stop preparing the students for graduate school. In fact, stop preparing students for another step of higher education in general. By placing emphasis on the “next stage” of education, professors fail to teach legitimate, world-ready skills to their students. It is here that the universities have a problem. By placing emphasis on knowledge in the classroom, the skills required for employment, “transferable skills” as Connor refers to them, are overlooked. It will do no student any good to recite the entirety of the works of Chaucer if they do not understand the importance of his legacy. Knowing that white phosphorus explodes on contact with oxygen is useless if it can’t be safely produced.
At Southern Arkansas University, an Interdisciplinary Studies option is available, where students engage in a range of classes designed to create a more broadly defined knowledge base. The problem with this model, as is the problem with Zemsky’s plan, is that students do not spend enough time with in these classes to learn anything in depth. Instead of encouraging every student to learn poorly a broad swath of human knowledge, which is an inefficient system when taken as a whole, we should encourage the learning of interpersonal skills. Cooperation between those with different areas of expertise is what truly leads to innovation, not a single person with a large collection of rudimentary skills.

Furthermore, Interdisciplinary Studies is, in reality, a continuation of high school which only prepares the student for graduate school. It is a field of study without a field; students learn that in which they are interested, from a broad spectrum of options. Interdisciplinary Studies is considered the lowest of offered degrees, and for good reason: the broad learning student cannot learn as efficiently. Students who take Interdisciplinary Studies are less likely to, in fact, have a general education. They are instead shaped by their advisors into clones.

In conclusion, Robert Zemsky’s call for change is valid. His ideas for this change, however, are not. Robert Connor’s call for teaching reputable skills that can translate into fields beyond their conception is actually a legitimate idea. A broad base of skills that can translate between fields is more useful than a broad range of knowledge which is limited in a more broadly defined way.