It's a sobering moment when the world changes around you and you suddenly realize you hadn't even noticed. Suddenly you are passé. I still remember my Dad's face when I played Hendrix on volume 500 for the first time; bye bye blackbird. I'm sure my oldest son remembers my face when he played Motörhead for me at volume 1000. Bye bye Stones. Suddenly one's cherished harmonies seem irrelevant or, at best, strangely quaint. Passé.
As the Provost of a brilliant University renowned for its liberal arts and science programs, its commitment to social justice, its proud traditions of activism and engagement, it's been a sobering few days. We've read announcements that York has a first year cohort of 6100 students, due to more applications in the university's health, science, and applied science programs; that Nipissing has experienced a 26% increase in part time studies and in new programs in science, math, technology and commerce. In addition, both federal and provincial governments have provided material support for the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math), as well as Business and commerce.
Have we suddenly become quaint, mildly outdated, strangely cute, like a bewildered old uncle, in our insistence on the value of a liberal university education? Have we become passé? I think NOT.
The apparent "change" in the post-secondary landscape has elicited an intriguing dialectic between those who trumpet the arrival of a new pragmatism amongst students (can I get a job with that?) and those who traipse out the by-now tired arguments about safeguarding civilization against the barbarian hordes. What interests me in this binarism is (a) the seductive allure of a utilitarian defence of the liberal arts and sciences (these are critical disciplines, we bleat, that teach students how to think critically, analyze, make connections and so on); (b) the risible assumption that today's students are totally market driven; and finally, (c) the bovine notion that science, technology, engineering, math, health sciences, professional programs, business, and commerce are somehow devoid of imagination, elegance, and wonder. These rigorous disciplines are, apparently, merely pragmatic preparations for an interview. Right. Tell that to Asaf Zohar.
What intrigues me in all of this discourse is the official desire for purity, the unspoken authoritarian need for disciplinary tidiness. Somehow the "hard" subjects seem better because they are pragmatic and utilitarian; the "soft" subjects seem useless and irrelevant to the real world of the marketplace. What a paltry vision of both the world and the human mind.
What interests me (and buoys me up) is the fact that the liberal arts and sciences were long ago re-signed (i.e.,"re-signatured") at Trent. Whether it's Chemistry or Philosophy, Business or International Development Studies, Indigenous Studies or Physics, these disciplines at Trent all embody a creative messiness, a delicious ragged-edginess of interdisciplinarity, of critical inquiry that crosses lines and troubles pundits. Maybe it's time we point this out in our advertising; maybe we need to be less shy about blowing our own horns. But the simple fact is that at Trent the liberal arts and sciences, as well as the professional programs, educate our people, not only in order to get jobs, but more importantly n order to wonder and to ask "why?". We're not an either/or sort of institution. We're more the both/and type.
Whatever shape our academic plan takes it will need to respect these qualities of a Trent education; the plan will have to be messy, interdisciplinary, and utterly devoted to creativity, imagination, and wonder.
Thoughts?
Before I comment, I write this as an interested academic, therefore, these views are my own and are not representative of any constituency or organization.
ReplyDeleteI recently wrote about this very issue in one of my blogs, but the issue really isn't whether or not Trent "does" liberal arts well - of course you do. The question is how liberal arts are framed and through what media? I mean, print is dead - that's it. The print publishing industry has all but collapsed, but Trent still academically and fiscally operates in an industrial economy that has all but left the building.
The links (pasted below) tell the tale of corporate giants who require people with just the kind of education that Trent provides (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/09/04/2011-09-04_want_a_job_major_in_liberal_arts.html and http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=416190). So why are students not flocking to Trent? I think there are many reasons that include a prestige problem and poor marketing, but (perhaps) more importantly, Trent invests little investment in its humanities departments (or any department, really).
We need faculty renewal, quite frankly.We need more people who research digital media and have research partnerships with, for example, the Critical Media Lab at UW.
Yep, I get it - there's no money, but without a major change in how Trent does its academic "business," I can't see the institution capitalizing on the cultural shift that valorizes a new kind of liberal arts major who can function in the digital economy.
Fantastic read about what Trent was, is and can be. Wonderfully written. However, the end forgets the beginning. Messy or crisp, silo'd or clusterf'd, the numbers are... sobering.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
In the Environmental and Resource Studies Program we highly value interdisciplinarity, because we realized decades ago that environmental problems cut across disciplines and cannot be solved without input from different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteClimate change cannot be solved by burying carbon if it is socially unaccepted or financially unviable; many people won't voluntarily reduce their energy consumption unless there is incentive *and* industry cooperation to make products more energy efficient; even the simple idea of whether bottled water is environmentally 'bad' requires examination from many different perspectives.
Interdisciplinary teaching also benefits the students, who go out into the world with a more balanced perspective, seeing how to approach solutions from not just one point of view, but from many. They learn to bring together affected parties to solve problems instead of working in isolation.
Cheers.
I'm a Trent alum with a philosophy degree. In my first year I had a chat with my professors and with a senior tutor about the "will this get me a job" question. Everyone said that critical thinking thing to me, and a whole lot about following my dreams, and whatever. I love philosophy and I think I am a super smart person as a result of having my degree.
ReplyDeleteBut. I'm really underemployed, and so is pretty much everyone from my classes. I make less than I would make if I had stayed at the entry-level retail job I had in high school. Except I have much, much more debt.
Students have become pragmatic about their earning potential because tuition is extremely expensive, and tuition fees are expensive. You can't pay your tuition with the wages from your summer job, especially since there aren't summer jobs to be had.
I wonder very much about whether lower numbers of retained students and low enrolment has to do with people's ability to pay tuition to begin with, or at least to acquire the credit needed to pay it.
Students who ask tough questions about whether their degrees will put them in a financial position to pay off the debt they incur are smart, and wise. My philosophy professors (who stressed their love of learning for its own sake) all had tenure and hadn't been in the job market for a long time. I do think it can be unethical for people in positions of authority to not take students' financial concerns seriously. It's the norm to go into debt to go to school, but kids who are seventeen and eighteen are taking on debt loads they might never repay.
From Ben Bauer (1 of 2)
ReplyDeleteOne beacon in all this gloom is that perhaps we have trustworthy
numbers -- numbers that have not been sliced, diced, and spiced
-- which on its own should be cause for a tiny revel after
years of 'finesse'. So, now what? How about a three-step
program to halt the death spiral? (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2
in http://tinyurl.com/FIXTRENTNOW0 and I bet you can say
"So here we are")
Step 1) Let's respect students (our lifeblood) who are not
just abstract BIU, FTE, 105s, cattle ... for us to process.
They are more than 'bums in seats' they are 'minds to meet'.
They see time spent in courses without resources and (as the
trend appears) taught by a blur of 'contingent' instructors. The
students know that recommendation letters, research practica,
and other important experiences/contacts to be gained by working
with permanent faculty are not (as) available from contingent
instructors. Why come here?
Step 2) Courage to redefine 'The Trent Way'. Most people are
more comfortable with old problems than with new solutions.
How is the current 'Trent Way' working out? (hint: So here
we are). Remaining in the paralysis-by-analysis mode or
continuing in the rudderless fashion of the last decade
will sink us. So, the direction? Pity Professor Boire who
must first halt the maelstrom then set this ship on course.
I can see faint signs of a spectre knocking on the pilot-house
door. But, where to point the rudder?
From Ben Bauer (2 of 2)
ReplyDeleteStep 3) Aye, the rudder! The direction is critical. We need a
new calling card (or flagship). The "bla bla sized university
in a bla bla setting with bla bla classes" card is stale. Who
are the subject-matter experts in university education? Is the
Board of Governors? are the Lawyers? Are students? Nope! So why
do we (faculty, instructors, etc.) let them dictate academic
direction? "If I had listened to my customer they would have
told me they want a faster horse" (Henry Ford). So here we are,
trying to build a faster horse (or rowboat? steamship?) in the
21st C. The new calling card? Trent is the Canadian university
with the highest ratio of full-time permanent instructors to
contingents (even in first year). Is this consistent with the
vital goals of recruitment and retention? How would we know?
How about EVIDENCE instead of a buzz-word laden mission plan?
http://tinyurl.com/FIXTRENTNOW1 Take home messages: lower
entry standards and more contingent instructors means lower
retention. So, here we are.