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.
Although I'm double majoring in Economics and Mathematics, I also agree with the author's attitude toward Jefferson's and Meiklejohn's ideas of a university. But I think this issue is related with the need to keep up with the development of industrial revolution that was going on in Europe at that time. The USA had to benefit from this development, so a requirement for science and technology majors emerged.
ReplyDeleteNowadays I don't think that there is such a requirement anymore. Science and technology has developed enough so that there is no need for so many majors in such departments. The essential knowledge and skills are taught together with other requirements. Today, especially in the developed countries, everyone knows how to use the computer or other technological devices at a sufficient level.
These policies lead to many problems with the performance of students at the university. I agree with the idea of specialization at the university level, but I don't support the idea that it has to be only in science and technology. Some students really tend to do better in science and technology majors, but other students don't. In the opposite that may tend to do better in social and liberal arts majors. I also agree with the idea of common curriculum since everyone needs to have a well-rounded knowledge to do good in life, but I think that it has to be finished at the high school level. The university level has to be concentrated on the specialization at a certain field of knowledge, because not everyone can afford to make master amd PH.D degrees in order to become experts at their profession.
I also agree with the author's idea that students should not be forced to learn something that they don't want or don't have to. They will mostly learn those classes to have a good GPA and probably will not know or remember anything after they finish them. It will be just a waste of time for them and this is not helpful or useful.
As a conclusion I may state that the ideas of university of Jefferson and Meiklejohn could be right and beneficial at their time, but they are not anymore in nowadays.