Interdisciplinary Curriculum and the Importance of the Student

Having read both Thomas Jefferson’s Report of the Commissioners for the University of Virginia and Meiklejohn’s The Liberal College, and after a thorough discussion of their central themes; it is clear that both share the desire to create a more sophisticated human being far above the ignorant commoner. To achieve this Jefferson and Meiklejohon focus their attention on two integral components of their idea for a university the superiority of the professors, and an education in the sciences. One of the most prominent themes in The Liberal College is the idea that the professor is the dominant individual in the class room and that he is responsible to keep his students focused on their studies. Little emphasis is put on the prominence of the student in the university they are there to learn, follow the professor’s word, and nothing else. Neither Jefferson nor Meiklejohn stress the importance of a well rounded curriculum, but rather backing the sciences and the further advance of technology. This emphasis on a single subject and little student input is potentially unhealthy for a university.

Without an interdisciplinary curriculum an individual cannot see the whole picture in relation to what that person is doing. Suppose a scientist comes out with a new invention or a medicine. Within his own field his invention might be considered ingenious, but it could have adverse affects on a group of people and could lead to social implications. As discussed in our previous class, stem cell research is thought of as a great way to cure diseases, but it has seen a backlash socially from a sizeable portion of the United States population. A general focus in an area of specialization along with diversified studies in other subjects that in some way pertain to their certain area of expertise is far more desirable. This allows for an individual to relate ideas between different subjects and grants a better understanding of the world around them.

This is not the only thing I believe wrong about Jefferson’s and Meiklejohn’s ideals of a university. Students must be allowed to question professors and to choice at least some part of the curriculum they take. A student could be forced into the sciences, the sciences being seen as the most important subject in the university, but may not fully enjoy or understand the material being taught to him. He might be better suited for pursuing the social sciences or English leading to an inefficient use of time and money.
In modern universities there must be an emphasis placed on a diversified curriculum and the student, without either of these colleges will gradually become more inefficient.

The University President's Role

In "The Idea of a Multiversity," Clark Kerr comments on the university president's changing role as a leader, stating that the president's job goal has changed from being a "troublemaker" who must stir up trouble between faculty members to being a "mediator" who must make peace between "nations of students, of faculty, of alumni, of trustees, of public groups." He makes it clear that past presidents felt it was important to have distinct plans in mind for the direction of change and development they wished to occur at their schools. In more recent years however, the university has evolved into a much larger and more complex institution with "more elements to conciliate" and more people to please; Kerr argues that this diversification has increased the university president's responsibility and range of tasks and claims that the modern "multiversity" president must be a "leader" and an "educator," as well as being a "consensus-seeker," and a "caretaker," among many other things. New job tasks have made it harder for current university presidents to carry out their own plans and dreams for their schools as presidents were often able to do in the past. This means that today's president is often forced to become a negotiator (or "mediator" as Kerr calls it) instead of fulfilling his past role of being the one person who had the ability to truly alter the school he ran according to his own vision of what it should become. Kerr says that modern university president must be "the central mediator among the values of the past, the prospects for the future, and the realities of the present," who is "driven more by necessity than by voices in the air."

Reading about what the president's role has changed to has made me wonder about whether it is really within one man's capacity to accomplish so many things and at the same time make sure that the university is doing well overall and that it is providing a proper education for students. It seems to me that universities today, especially large ones, have so many separate entities and facilities within them that must be negotiated with and overlooked by the president that there is little time left for him to monitor the progress of students and determine which improvements and policy implementations needs to be made. Do you think that this development has hurt the average university education? If so, how? If not, then what other forces within the university besides the president do you think have allowed schools to maintain their academic standards and provide their students with good educations?

liberal education

While deciding which essay to write on I found it very difficult to choose just one. Each of the writers Jefferson, Meiklejohn, Flexner and Kerr are interesting in the each individual way. I found Jefferson of all to have the most interesting aspect of this form of higher education. The layout of his university itself is an attest to his idea of the university as a whole and what it should entail. The fact that the professor are to live on campus is the exact idea of what Jefferson wanted from that education, the connectedness and interweaving of students and teachers. In my mind the image i receive from Jefferson's idea of the university is a type of apprenticeship between these professors and students. I find it actually in a way more of an appealing idea of a university that a sense of community and a bond is formed which can help to motivate the students with continuing that education. I also found it quite motivating the step that Jefferson took outside the norm of the religious era in which a University was formed around the religion and for once in Jefferson's university it was actually shockingly based around education by removing the chapel from the center of the university and replacing it with a library. Another interesting topic we discussed in class was the matter of this idea of the liberal education with the removal of specialization. I find this idea to be difficult. In the time of educators such as Jefferson i find this idea to be more of a possibility but in our day and age people don't have the time or the money to have the luxury of taking classes for their own leisure as is implied by this type of educational focus. I believe that this time calls for specialization in order to produce more efficient and affective students.

The Connectedness of all Knowledge

Throughout all of the many pages from Cardinal John Henry Newman that we read, there were several steady themes and approaches that he took regarding his discussion of knowledge, the place of religion in the university, and gentlemanliness. While our analysis of his ideas during class uncovered some inconsistencies and hypocrisies in his work, especially in relation to the theories of secular humanism and the general ideologies of the Universities of today, there was one key argument that I felt was central to understanding his message. Newman stressed the importance of all types of knowledge in the university, not excluding, and sometimes most importantly, religion. Be it the sciences, mathematics, history, writing, or a fundamental understanding of theology, Newman believed that all aspects contributed to the gentleman as a whole. The thoughts are summarized perfectly in the introduction of an earlier edition of The Idea of a University, written by Major General Josiah Bunting III, the former superintendant and professor of humanities at Virginia Military Institute. Bunting says that, "Considering the idea and purposes of a university, Newman developed one of his major themes: the connectedness of all knowledge, theology not excluded; and indeed the necessity of making that connectedness manifest, for and before, undergraduates who would be the beneficiaries of the academic curriculum of the university". Bunting identifies a crucial point in that a University cannot just teach many different types of academic and religious courses to its students, it must make them aware of the relationship between all knowledge and allow them to implement aspects from every field in their daily lives.

Although we have already identified Newman's exclusiveness towards white, American males as the subjects of a gentlemanly education, as well as his propensity to let academics take a backseat to religion, his ideas are indeed the very foundation of today's 'liberal arts' education. In fact, right here at Trinity University a major part our common curriculum falls under the heading of "The Understandings". Cultural heritage, the arts and literature, human social interaction, quantitative reasoning, and natural science and technology are the five understandings, of which several hours of coursework must be completed to satisfy the requirements of the common curriculum. In the University's catalogue, it states that the purpose of the common curriculum is in part to promote the "personal, lifelong quest for understanding oneself and one's place in the world, and the serious commitment to respond to the opportunities and needs of society and self, which are the true marks of a liverally educated person". Knowing this in light of our recent discussions about Newman's work raises an interesting question: Would a liberally educated person found to have successfully completed the requirements to graduate from Trinity University meet Newman's criteria for a gentleman? Undoubtedly the absence of a requirement to study religion would be frowned upon, but it is thought-provoking to consider the differences between our liberal arts education and the ideas of a man who will soon be given the title of saint.

The "Idea" of the University

In class on thursday we discussed the writings by Cardinal Newman on his ideas and hopes for a catholic university that could finally provide a solid and well rounded education, but the catch is that this education was only provided to catholic male making it not as well rounded as he thought. His aspiration was to provide a good education to these catholic students that had been so underprivileged and discriminated against while he himself was guilty of discriminating against all others. I found this to be an very interesting and almost shocking point in which his view of rising above the discrimination of his faith is to build a large institution to which he could return the favor towards all those responsible. I find this shocking because going to a Catholic high school and learning the faith, we were told to in a sense "turn the other cheek", not return the favor. I find it confusing that someone as high in his faith as a Cardinal of the Catholic church would have such an intention as to exclude others from his institution to provide a good education to these Catholic students. What is most ironic is that his idea of such an institution would be harmful to these students in such that they would not be able to experience the world and its knowledge for what it is, they would experience it from what Cardinal John Henry Newman believed it was.

Newman's Idea of the University

In John Henry Newman's book The Idea of a University, he establishes his clear opinion that

universities that demonstrate higher education should establish connections with the church. His

defense of this opinion is that the church "is necessary for (the university's) integrity" (Newman 3). Newman's focus on integrity and connections between faith and the university can be seen in different ways. While some can clearly understand his reasoning, others may view his opinions as judgmental and somewhat hypocritical in the way that he at times goes back on his word.

Newman's perfect university has a strong focus on what he calls "universal education". This includes people from all backgrounds coming together to communicate thought and common ideas. He seems to feel very strongly about diversity in education, but the fact that he is close-minded to other religious views makes his view of the ideal university seem nearly unrealistic. What caught my attention in class today was the similarities we were able to draw between today's university (we mainly used Trinity as an example) and the basis of secular humanism. Both focused on ideas of freedom and moral education through reason, science and technology, and ideas such as evolution which bring about religious skepticism. Newman's claim is that religion brings about a connection of all types of knowledge. But, in my opinion, his inability to accept those outside of his "Civilization" limits the amount of knowledge that can be shared.

Does this not conflict with the goal of higher education? Is Newman's expectations for the university unrealistic for today's society?

Max

Welcome!

The is the course blog for a First-Year Seminar focusing on the university as an institution. We will examine definitions of the “university”: what is it? How does it operate? Whom does it serve? How is it organized? We will also discuss and enter debates about various issues: academic labor; financial aid and student debt; the relationship between higher education and professional preparation as well as intellectual pursuit; and the move toward the corporatization of academia.

Participants in the seminar will post regular entries offering thoughts on course readings and discussions as well as relevant texts and issues. Those not taking the course are welcome to participate in the conversation as well, using the "Comments" to share opinions and arguments.