c/o The New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
In the April 26th edition of The New York Times, Professor Mark C. Taylor argued that “Graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning.” Taylor, who is the chair of the religion department at Columbia University, argues that universities need an overhaul akin to that needed for the auto industry. His ideas are thought provoking, but a little misguided. I encourage you to read his op-ed first, but allow me to briefly summarize his suggestions for change:
1. Overhaul education to eliminate a focus on disciplines;
2. Abolish departments and replace with “problem-focused programs”;
3. Increase collaboration between institutions;
4. Transform traditional dissertations by offering “alternative” theses; and,
5. Expand the range of professional graduate programs.
Taylor would seem to suggest that disciplines are what you study. I disagree. Disciplines are the way you study it. What you choose to study is the decision of the scholar. However, disciplines train you to undertake that study by providing you with a framework in which to work, a methodology, a scholarly tradition and a societal outlook. Taylor suggests that “problem-focused programs” are a better way to train students. I think there are certainly great benefits to interdisciplinary education. Problem-based investigations are a method to achieve that. However, you can’t ignore depth for the sake of breadth. Also, there is more to learn than problems in this world. How does one appreciate modern art if we only analyze it to identify the problems?
Departments in higher education are generally organized around disciplines. The problem with departments are not that they exist around disciplines, but that a scholar might see it as the “pen in which they must play.” I don’t think that’s the case by and large. In fact, a common refrain I hear is that too many faculty find it difficult to find colleagues with whom they can collaborate in their own departments. Fields have become so specialized, that many scholars need to look to other department and other institutions to find collaborators. Therefore, I think Taylor’s aim for inter-institutional and inter-departmental collaboration is occurring at a higher level then he realizes. However, the Department’s continue to reinforce the strengths of the disciplines and demonstrate how old methodologies can be applied in new ways.
I am more sympathetic to his suggestion that dissertations need to be adaptable to the needs of the student and the focus of their research. A lengthy document may not appropriate or necessary in every case. However, the point of the thesis is to demonstrate advanced original research in a field. Though the page count might drop, the rigour is still necessary. I also agree that higher education needs to be responsive to the need for advanced studies (beyond undergraduate programs) that better prepare students for leadership roles in different professional settings. A new array of professional programs are needed. However, it’s important that institutions retain their integrity and don’t simply become degree farms. A professional master’s program should include not only advanced seminars, but research opportunities and a significant portfolio or written assignment.
Taylor’s comments seem to be motivated out of a concern about the division of labour in higher education. Taylor rightly notes that, “without underpaid graduate students to help in laboratories and with teaching, universities couldn’t conduct research or even instruct their growing undergraduate populations.” This dilemma is well described by Marc Bousquet in “How the University Works: Higher Education and the Low-Wage Nation.” However, both Taylor and Bousquet suggest that the purpose of a Ph.D. is to become a professor and researcher. I don’t agree. There are personal and professional reasons beyond joining the academy that would lead one to complete a Ph.D. Universities would not be doing a service by denying Ph.D. studies simply because a faculty position did not await the graduates. No university guarantees undergraduates the job of their dreams upon graduation. Why would they do so for Ph.D.’s?
