Here is an interesting editorial calling for radical restructuring of universities. The basic point is that “universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost.” While I agree with this, in principle. However, the author’s suggestions only makes sense from the university’s perspective, not society’s perspective. Allow me to explain.
Universities have four basic purposes: 1) educate the public; 2) undertake scientific research; 3) train new researchers; 4) create innovative artifacts. The problem at the heart of the North American education system is that educating the public has nothing to do with purposes 2, 3 and 4. Furthermore, the qualities that make a good educator of the public and the qualities that make one a good researcher have little overlap. Education is about empathy. Research is about brilliance.
For any of the suggestions in the aforementioned article to make sense, we have to split up universities into centers of public education and centers of research and development (which would also train researchers).
Public Education
John Q. Public does not need a well-rounded education including Shakespeare, calculus and at least one foreign language. John Q. Public needs a ‘trade’ certification. And by trade, I do not mean just carpentry and plumbing. All the so-called professions are just trades – medical doctor, lawyer, electrician, peacekeeper, forklift operator, scientist – what’s the difference? Yeah, you need more education to be a good scientist than a good forklift operator, but so what? Practically all jobs beyond migrant fruit picker require at least some specialized knowledge.
We can divide this knowledge into that which can be codified and that which must be learned through experience. The trade schools understand this. That’s why, in countries all over the world, an electrician must first pass an exam, then work as an apprentice, then pass another exam, then work as a journeyman, etc.
Yet universities are largely not set up this way. If you want to be a professional technical writer, for instance, what do you do? B.A. in English? What the hell do Keats, Shakespeare and Beowulf have to do with technical writing? And where would you learn to express complex topics in a simple manner? English degrees teach you to use bigger words and more convoluted expressions. Technical writers need basic vocabulary and simple sentences.
What is clearly needed, then, is a proliferation of trade certification programs and exams designed to educate the capable and weed out the incapable. These certification programs should be as short and to the point as possible. At least 90% of the people who currently inhabit undergraduate programs belong in this kind of job training.
Research, Grad Students and Innovative Artifacts
The remaining 10%, the 10% who go to grad school, need to immediately begin research training in what are now called universities. Since only the brightest will get in, they should be able to cover something similar to existing undergraduate degrees (minus all the fluff) in two years, followed by an internship in a research lab. Then it would be on two another two-year masters program, followed by a research assistantship. Then a two year PhD. Only two years for a PhD? Hell yes, once you cut out all the bullshit. Most of a PhD is dicking around, administrative crap, classes you shouldn’t be in, exams that don’t prove anything, and endless hours perfecting documents nobody reads. If they just dumped all that bullshit and stuck to designing and executing good studies, a PhD would only take two years.
As I mentioned above, Universities are in the business of scientific research and creating innovative artifacts. There’s this thing they do in arts that they call research – writing analyses of historical documents, pondering existentialist dilemmas, weaving baskets. I don’t know. It all seems crazy to me. I have no problem with a university employing English profs who write experimental novels and music profs who compose wonderful pieces. Those are innovative artifacts, just the same as new building methods created by engineers. But classics? That’s beyond me.
Coming back to the point, this research must be directed toward the horrifying problems plaguing our society: overpopulation, climate change, lack of energy, poverty, disease, religious fundamentalism, anti-rationalism, etc. It’s not tenure that has to go, it’s government funding of research that doesn’t address these critical problems. Of course, some percentage of funding must be held for research of unknown value by mathematicians, theoretical physicists, etc., but most research funding must be directed toward projects that matter to society. It’s taxpayer money after all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, teaching and research have nothing to do with each other. 90% of universities need to be converted into trade certification schools, where any job requiring specialized knowledge is a trade. Those who would be scientists need to go directly to the remaining 10% (the actual universities). The majority of scientists at these Universities must be directed toward solving the problems that pose an imminent threat to humanity as we know it.
Unfortunately, we’ll run out of scientists before we run out of problems.
| Comments | Published in | PREV | NEXT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 |
education essay |
Ur wrong. Abolishing universities would hurt this country. America is all ready dumb enough. If wee didn’t have ppl go to college and get at least a BA or BS they wouldn’t be smart and wouldnt be able to get a job. Then the whole econumy whole spiral out of control and those poor misunderstood researchers that u hat would be out of a job.
u Should be ashamed of urself. PHD profs say that the public needs to learn about Shakespear and calculis and a foreign language. They need generel education so they can further themselves and be beter people. They abviously know more than you. I bet u didn’t even graduate frum college.
Thankfuly I got my degree and was able to get a good paying desk job becuz I got strait As. Now I get good pay and can show the ppl that read this retched article how dum you are. I bet your one of those people who hated school and got bad grades and thats why you don’t have a job and write these horible articles so ppl wil feel sorry for you. Your the reason people think American schools suck, even though they wont admit that we hav the best education facilities and public schools in the hole world. Erupe is just jealous. Maybe if those idiots that homeschool there kids would stop depriving them and let them come to school to learn and get an educatin then we would be out of this mes. But those dum cristians are so stuborn and wont listen to our goverment.
oh and Trade school and community college arent isn’t reel school, that’s where dum people go who couldnt make it into college and become PHDs. Theyre the people who liv in crappy apartments and take my tax dollars even though they dont deserve them. They were probobly homeschooled or droped out or sumthing.
Olso, if a person wanted to become a writer then they shuld know about Shakespear and Beowulf and those other writers, becuz it will help them learn how to become good riters. And calculus and other languages will help them expand theyre horizons and be better people for society. Unlike you!!1!
See that last comment?
That is a prime example of the American education system and apparently the people they give degrees to.
I’ve long held the idea that academics (the subject) should be reserved for academics (the profession). I agree with a lot of your analysis, although I’d hold that the problem with the university system lies in the failure of American high schools.
Why in the world do you have to take American history in high school and then in college? I’ve heard the argument that it’s more “advanced” in college level courses, but i personally think that’s bullshit–treat people like kids and you’re going to get kids. America seems obsessed with prolonging infancy, and most of the people who are college age have not been given time to adequately mature. When this happens, universities need to take up the slack.
I think it’s a sickening problem, given that universities are supposed to provide a particular foundation for one’s life (whatever they want to pursue) but instead seems to focus on rounding off the high school (ie, child) education. I have nothing against teaching mathematics, and a myriad of other topics in high school–I agree with the argument that teaching math trains the students to think, reason and solve problems in particular ways. However, it only achieves this goal when the teacher teaches the subject in this way. Unfortunately, most math teachers can’t be assed to do it. They’re so cynical that the quality of their teaching falls flat, and their students come out of it memorizing useless formulas but not grounded with a clear understanding of the relationships involved.
Overall, pretty disheartening if you ask me.
@Rob, are you intentionally trying to present yourself as moron by pretending you can’t spell? WTF are you talking about?
1. You’ve got the causality backwards. Smart people tend to go to University. Universities do not make people smart.
2. English professors are experts in English literature, not in how to design post-secondary education systems.
3. Why am I wasting my time writing this when it’s obvious you’re just baiting me?
4. How dull is your life that you amuse yourself by baiting people on obscure blogs?
@H, maybe, or maybe he’s just being a douchebag. (BTW if you would kindly leave a real email address with your next comment, I would like to send you something. But if you want to stay anonymous, that’s perfectly alright.)
@E, a very good point. High school is just as broken as university, and not just in the U.S. However, even if high school was maximally effective, admitting the top 30% into ‘academic training,’ instead of the top 5% will still cause the kind of dilution of the curriculum we see today.
I like what E said. But generally i agree almost 95% with you Kavan. so I’ve really got not to much else to say
Cheers.
I’d like to see more schools follow this example (in principal).
http://www.duvalschools.org/darnellcookman/
http://livesteez.com/news/read/14-Year-Old-Surgeon-Wows-Medical-Professionals/1877.html
Sorry you are wrong.
The desire to educate oneself is not solely driven by the goal of stepping into a job that already exists. Universities engender ideas wihin people, without which society would not progress and develop and change .
@Brian, thanks for contributing nonetheless
@Rick, not sure what you’re getting at with these links…
@ruth, aside from a small number of philosophy classes, I have never taken or heard of a course that was explicitly intended to develop critical thinking. Societal change is a political process, not an educational one – see, for instance, all of the politicians who deny global warming and the power they wield.
the only reason that i am going to uni’ is because i “need” the piece of paper that tells me what i already know.if there was a way to learning what i wanted to would not go to uni’.
P.s you should use spell check more often and avoid “txt language” or at lest when you are trying to prove a point.
well said (or rather typed)